Employment Law Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Anthony J. Oncidi
• Publication year: 2017
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 1

Employment Law Case Notes

By Anthony J. Oncidi

Anthony J. Oncidi is a partner in and the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles, where he exclusively represents employers and management in all areas of employment and labor law. His telephone number is (310) 284-5690 and his email address is aoncidi@ proskauer.com. (Tony has authored this column without interruption for every issue of this publication since 1990.)

EMPLOYER NOT LIABLE FOR $885,000 IN DAMAGES CAUSED BY OFF-DUTY EMPLOYEE

Jorge v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 3 Cal. App. 5th 382 (2016)

Leopoldo Jorge, Jr., sued Almir Da Fonseca and his employer, the Culinary Institute of America, for injuries Jorge sustained when he was struck by a car driven by Da Fonseca. Da Fonseca, who is employed as a chef instructor for the Institute, had finished his shift and was driving home in his own car at the time of the accident. A jury found that Da Fonseca was negligent and that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he injured Jorge, and awarded Jorge $885,000. The Institute filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. The court of appeal reversed the judgment and the order denying the Institute's motion, holding that under the "going and coming rule," the Institute was not liable for the accident because Da Fonseca was not acting within the scope of his employment when he was driving home. The court rejected Jorge's claim that the Institute required Da Fonseca to use his personal vehicle for work purposes, especially during his ordinary commute home.

EMPLOYER DID NOT MISAPPROPRIATE NAME AND LIKENESS OF EMPLOYEE

Local TV, LLC v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2016)

Kurt Knutsson, a technology reporter who created "Kurt the CyberGuy" video segments for use on television news programs and station websites, sued Local TV for the use by its stations of CyberGuy material. Although Knutsson had entered into a written agreement under which the CyberGuy material was distributed to the websites of various television stations, Knutsson alleged misappropriation of his name and likeness; Local TV claimed that Knutsson had consented to the use. The trial court denied Local TV's motion for summary judgment, but the court of appeal granted Local TV's petition for a writ of mandate, holding that Knutsson had consented to Local TV's use of the CyberGuy material in...